There's enough evidence that black voters are inclining more to Trump than in 2016 for this to be statistically significant.
This doesn't mean all of them are or even a majority - in fact it's a larger minority - but it is worth closer inspection and not dismissal.
Indeed, it would be ironic if Biden ends up with the highest share of the white vote for a Democratic candidate since Obama in 2008 but Trump narrowly wins re election because he gets the highest share of the black vote for a Republican candidate since Reagan in 1980 got 14% of African American support
I don't think Trump will win but there's clearly a level of complexity to how people see him and the Republicans over there that people over here simply don't get.
We should be a bit more humble and objective in assessing the situation and to do so dispassionately.
Indeed, it reminds me of 2004, we Brits just did not get how on earth Americans could vote for Dubya over Kerry but forgetting that Dubya was looking to win over American voters to win a US election not win approval from voters in the UK.
In US terms the UK would be a solid blue safe Democratic state in the North East, not a swing state in the MidWest
Actually, I'm not sure it would. Particularly in England.
We'd see American politics then through a domestic prism, not an international one, which would broaden and change our views on both the candidates.
We would vote for Biden somewhere along the lines of the margin New Jersey or New York will vote for Biden in November, Trump might win a few rural or ex industrial parts of England but otherwise we would just slot into blue America.
Though of course if post Brexit the UK became the 51st US state that would tip Presidential elections to the Democrats anyway, the UK would be the biggest state population wise in the US with even more EC votes than California and that would mean both Gore and Kerry would have won in 2000 and 2004 and Hillary would have won in 2016 and Biden would almost certainly win next month too
An American nationalist candidate would win by running against the toffee-nosed Brits.
Boris Johnson hopes families can have Christmas together
It is Boris Johnson's "ambition" for people to celebrate Christmas with their families, his spokesman has said. The prime minister is "hopeful" that "some aspects of our lives" could be "back to normal" by then, he added.
Yesterday one of the government scientists said there could be as many as 90k new cases per day at the moment. The ONS data runs to the 9th and estimates 32k new infections per day.
I can't fit those two data points together. What kind of data modelling are they using for this? I've started to put a logarithmic regression model together today and it can't get near that doubling rate with the daily data inputs or with the ONS data inputs.
I really have to start questioning the competence of the government scientists at this stage.
As opposed to Scottish Nationalists whose real raison d'etre is their hatred of people who identify as English, whether young or old, rich or poor. While I don't like the vote against the extension of free school meals, observing any Nationalist "arsehole" who supports the braindead, hate filled irrational quasi-religion of Scottish Nationalism, (let's not forget its occasional past flirtations with Nazism and Fascism), calling people who follow another party such names has to be seen as pretty rich. Nats are a very poor position to pontificate on morals.
I am forthright You are unparliamentary He/She is inciting violence
Yesterday one of the government scientists said there could be as many as 90k new cases per day at the moment. The ONS data runs to the 9th and estimates 32k new infections per day.
I can't fit those two data points together. What kind of data modelling are they using for this? I've started to put a logarithmic regression model together today and it can't get near that doubling rate with the daily data inputs or with the ONS data inputs.
I really have to start questioning the competence of the government scientists at this stage.
There was the slide from two weeks ago, where they showed I think 3-4 different "models" of true infections per day. I can't remember the exact figures, but the ONS was down at something like 20k, and there was one model that had up on the slide at upto 70k.
Again, like the how many lives will a circuit breaker save, from low 1000s to over 100k, I do start to really wonder about some of these models.
There's enough evidence that black voters are inclining more to Trump than in 2016 for this to be statistically significant.
This doesn't mean all of them are or even a majority - in fact it's a larger minority - but it is worth closer inspection and not dismissal.
Indeed, it would be ironic if Biden ends up with the highest share of the white vote for a Democratic candidate since Obama in 2008 but Trump narrowly wins re election because he gets the highest share of the black vote for a Republican candidate since Reagan in 1980 got 14% of African American support
I don't think Trump will win but there's clearly a level of complexity to how people see him and the Republicans over there that people over here simply don't get.
We should be a bit more humble and objective in assessing the situation and to do so dispassionately.
Indeed, it reminds me of 2004, we Brits just did not get how on earth Americans could vote for Dubya over Kerry but forgetting that Dubya was looking to win over American voters to win a US election not win approval from voters in the UK.
In US terms the UK would be a solid blue safe Democratic state in the North East, not a swing state in the MidWest
Actually, I'm not sure it would. Particularly in England.
We'd see American politics then through a domestic prism, not an international one, which would broaden and change our views on both the candidates.
We would vote for Biden somewhere along the lines of the margin New Jersey or New York will vote for Biden in November, Trump might win a few rural parts of England but otherwise we would just slot into blue America.
Though of course if post Brexit the UK became the 51st state that would tip Presidential elections to the Democrats anyway, the UK would be the biggest state population wise in the US with even more EC votes than California and that would mean both Gore and Kerry would have won in 2000 and 2004 and Biden would almost certainly win next month too
Not only that, if the four nations of the UK each became a state the Senate would likely be permanently out of reach of the Republicans too.
None of that is ever going to happen, of course.
"The Senate would likely be permanently out of reach of the Republicans too" - except it would not. The centre of gravity in US politics would just move until the GOP were competitive.
There's enough evidence that black voters are inclining more to Trump than in 2016 for this to be statistically significant.
This doesn't mean all of them are or even a majority - in fact it's a larger minority - but it is worth closer inspection and not dismissal.
Indeed, it would be ironic if Biden ends up with the highest share of the white vote for a Democratic candidate since Obama in 2008 but Trump narrowly wins re election because he gets the highest share of the black vote for a Republican candidate since Reagan in 1980 got 14% of African American support
I don't think Trump will win but there's clearly a level of complexity to how people see him and the Republicans over there that people over here simply don't get.
We should be a bit more humble and objective in assessing the situation and to do so dispassionately.
Indeed, it reminds me of 2004, we Brits just did not get how on earth Americans could vote for Dubya over Kerry but forgetting that Dubya was looking to win over American voters to win a US election not win approval from voters in the UK.
In US terms the UK would be a solid blue safe Democratic state in the North East, not a swing state in the MidWest
Actually, I'm not sure it would. Particularly in England.
We'd see American politics then through a domestic prism, not an international one, which would broaden and change our views on both the candidates.
We would vote for Biden somewhere along the lines of the margin New Jersey or New York will vote for Biden in November, Trump might win a few rural parts of England but otherwise we would just slot into blue America.
Though of course if post Brexit the UK became the 51st state that would tip Presidential elections to the Democrats anyway, the UK would be the biggest state population wise in the US with even more EC votes than California and that would mean both Gore and Kerry would have won in 2000 and 2004 and Biden would almost certainly win next month too
Not only that, if the four nations of the UK each became a state the Senate would likely be permanently out of reach of the Republicans too.
None of that is ever going to happen, of course.
"The Senate would likely be permanently out of reach of the Republicans too" - except it would not. The centre of gravity in US politics would just move until the GOP were competitive.
There's enough evidence that black voters are inclining more to Trump than in 2016 for this to be statistically significant.
This doesn't mean all of them are or even a majority - in fact it's a larger minority - but it is worth closer inspection and not dismissal.
I give a fair hearing to reasonable arguments on inner city crime, on the economy, on Biden's sense of entitlement, etc, and the associated polling data.
But presenting ridiculously large trends in subsamples without a health warning is not part of that. Rasmussen charge for access to their crosstabs, so you can't check whether there's a simple observation bias at work in presenting random data as a trend.
It's not just this poll.
Yes, as I said, I listen to the other stuff.
I'm criticising this data and the interpretation of it.
- The Republicans have narrowed the gap again vs the Democrats in % of absentee ballots - 42% vs 29% vs 43%/28% the day before. One feature that makes me think that doesn't reflect the true position is that in Rural County areas (which was a strong Trump area), 42% of the absentee ballots come from Democrats vs 32% for Republicans, which makes me think some of these are old-school Democrats by registration but who actually vote Republican;
- 22% of those who have voted already didn't vote in 2016 (17% post-16 registration). Not much difference in the Democrat / Republican % of vote from non-16 voters (21%/19%);
- Older voters continue to dominate - only 22% of votes so far from 40 or under even though they make up 40% of the electorate;
- The Republicans have picked up the speed in terms of % of those registered who have already voted. If the curve continues at the same rate, they will pass the Democrats by election day;
- On the racial mix, White turnout again looks to have picked up as % of overall voters, Black voters probably trending in line as % of absentee ballots as their share of voters (c. 22%)
Yesterday one of the government scientists said there could be as many as 90k new cases per day at the moment. The ONS data runs to the 9th and estimates 32k new infections per day.
I can't fit those two data points together. What kind of data modelling are they using for this? I've started to put a logarithmic regression model together today and it can't get near that doubling rate with the daily data inputs or with the ONS data inputs.
I really have to start questioning the competence of the government scientists at this stage.
There was the slide from two weeks ago, where they showed I think 3-4 different "models" of true infections per day. I can't remember the exact figures, but the ONS was down at something like 20k, and there was one model that had up on the slide at upto 70k.
Again, like the how many lives will a circuit breaker save, from low 1000s to over 100k, I do start to really wonder about some of these models.
Even with the most pessimistic assumptions I can't hit 90k, I mean bumping down NPI effectiveness from what they are estimated to be right now to less than half, and that change happening overnight from the 9th still doesn't get near 90k.
Meanwhile the Black vote seems to be moving more to Trump relative to 2016 which could be pivotal in Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina which have above average percentages of African American voters
Come on. If you obtained variance like that, you'd junk your methodology. 24% to 46% in 3 days in the absence of a war or 9/11 type event? Malarkey.
I suspect that both Rasmussen and Trafalgar are basically trousering money from GOP backers to keep producing "polls" that make it look like they are still in the race.
Rasmussen was the only pollster projecting a GOP lead in the mid-terms. They lost by 8.4%.
Rasmussen are the only pollster telling us Trump has a positive approval rating whilst everyone else has a disapproval rating of around 7 to 20%.
There are very good reasons these too are graded as C/ C- pollsters.
Actually, I think a better way of bringing society together would be for people who are ridiculously rich, such as Premier League Footballers, to set up places where children in need can go and meet, eat, play etc for free during the holidays, rather than demand the state hand out food vouchers. They dole out Asda vouchers at my girlfriends school, and they get parents rolling up in their Range Rovers asking if they can have Marks and Spencer ones instead!
There's enough evidence that black voters are inclining more to Trump than in 2016 for this to be statistically significant.
This doesn't mean all of them are or even a majority - in fact it's a larger minority - but it is worth closer inspection and not dismissal.
Indeed, it would be ironic if Biden ends up with the highest share of the white vote for a Democratic candidate since Obama in 2008 but Trump narrowly wins re election because he gets the highest share of the black vote for a Republican candidate since Reagan in 1980 got 14% of African American support
I don't think Trump will win but there's clearly a level of complexity to how people see him and the Republicans over there that people over here simply don't get.
We should be a bit more humble and objective in assessing the situation and to do so dispassionately.
Indeed, it reminds me of 2004, we Brits just did not get how on earth Americans could vote for Dubya over Kerry but forgetting that Dubya was looking to win over American voters to win a US election not win approval from voters in the UK.
In US terms the UK would be a solid blue safe Democratic state in the North East, not a swing state in the MidWest
Actually, I'm not sure it would. Particularly in England.
We'd see American politics then through a domestic prism, not an international one, which would broaden and change our views on both the candidates.
We would vote for Biden somewhere along the lines of the margin New Jersey or New York will vote for Biden in November, Trump might win a few rural parts of England but otherwise we would just slot into blue America.
Though of course if post Brexit the UK became the 51st state that would tip Presidential elections to the Democrats anyway, the UK would be the biggest state population wise in the US with even more EC votes than California and that would mean both Gore and Kerry would have won in 2000 and 2004 and Biden would almost certainly win next month too
Not only that, if the four nations of the UK each became a state the Senate would likely be permanently out of reach of the Republicans too.
None of that is ever going to happen, of course.
I think NI would unite with the Irish Republic in that scenario, so we would only be States 51-53. Perhaps London would choose to be a separate state. Yorkshire and other parts of the North too. A lot of other interesting questions raised, of course. We would have to lose the monarchy. Would Canada join too? Would the 2nd amendment lead to more gun violence here? How would it affect population dynamics here (I am guessing rapid depopulation)? Would the American South put up with their country shifting to the left permanently or seek to secede again? Would they learn how to make a decent cuppa? In a lot of ways there is a logic to the idea of a vast Anglosphere Republic, but it could be a pretty crazy place and evolve in some unexpected ways. I'm not particularly against it, the US is a weird place but I've lived there before and don't mind living there again.
Meanwhile the Black vote seems to be moving more to Trump relative to 2016 which could be pivotal in Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina which have above average percentages of African American voters
Come on. If you obtained variance like that, you'd junk your methodology. 24% to 46% in 3 days in the absence of a war or 9/11 type event? Malarkey.
I suspect that both Rasmussen and Trafalgar are basically trousering money from GOP backers to keep producing "polls" that make it look like they are still in the race.
Rasmussen was the only pollster projecting a GOP lead in the mid-terms. They lost by 8.4%.
Rasmussen are the only pollster telling us Trump has a positive approval rating whilst everyone else has a disapproval rating of around 7 to 20%.
There are very good reasons these too are graded as C/ C- pollsters.
If people could not find essential products in supermarkets there were ways around the problem, he said, adding that friends and neighbours were "often very willing to help".
"There are online ways that people can purchase goods," Mr Drakeford said. "It is not a problem without a solution."
The Welsh are absolutely correct. Only by banning Tesco from selling hairdryers can they complete their mission to give all General Merchandise marketshare to Amazon.
There's enough evidence that black voters are inclining more to Trump than in 2016 for this to be statistically significant.
This doesn't mean all of them are or even a majority - in fact it's a larger minority - but it is worth closer inspection and not dismissal.
Indeed, it would be ironic if Biden ends up with the highest share of the white vote for a Democratic candidate since Obama in 2008 but Trump narrowly wins re election because he gets the highest share of the black vote for a Republican candidate since Reagan in 1980 got 14% of African American support
I don't think Trump will win but there's clearly a level of complexity to how people see him and the Republicans over there that people over here simply don't get.
We should be a bit more humble and objective in assessing the situation and to do so dispassionately.
Indeed, it reminds me of 2004, we Brits just did not get how on earth Americans could vote for Dubya over Kerry but forgetting that Dubya was looking to win over American voters to win a US election not win approval from voters in the UK.
In US terms the UK would be a solid blue safe Democratic state in the North East, not a swing state in the MidWest
Actually, I'm not sure it would. Particularly in England.
We'd see American politics then through a domestic prism, not an international one, which would broaden and change our views on both the candidates.
We would vote for Biden somewhere along the lines of the margin New Jersey or New York will vote for Biden in November, Trump might win a few rural or ex industrial parts of England but otherwise we would just slot into blue America.
Though of course if post Brexit the UK became the 51st US state that would tip Presidential elections to the Democrats anyway, the UK would be the biggest state population wise in the US with even more EC votes than California and that would mean both Gore and Kerry would have won in 2000 and 2004 and Hillary would have won in 2016 and Biden would almost certainly win next month too
The centre of US politics would shift and then Republicans and Democrats would fight over England as a swing state - we'd simply reach a new equilibrium.
The Democrats identity politics and pro-union stance wouldn't go down particularly well in England. The Republicans would need to moderate their god, guns and gays brand and then there'd be a fair fight.
If people could not find essential products in supermarkets there were ways around the problem, he said, adding that friends and neighbours were "often very willing to help".
"There are online ways that people can purchase goods," Mr Drakeford said. "It is not a problem without a solution."
If Boris had said this, he would be absolutely blasted, as out of touch with the poor and the old, who don't have internet access.
It's a completely ridiculous thing to say. Destroying British businesses and jobs in favour of a giant American multi-national company. I don't understand why government ministers aren't smashing this on TV every chance they get right now.
There's enough evidence that black voters are inclining more to Trump than in 2016 for this to be statistically significant.
This doesn't mean all of them are or even a majority - in fact it's a larger minority - but it is worth closer inspection and not dismissal.
Indeed, it would be ironic if Biden ends up with the highest share of the white vote for a Democratic candidate since Obama in 2008 but Trump narrowly wins re election because he gets the highest share of the black vote for a Republican candidate since Reagan in 1980 got 14% of African American support
I don't think Trump will win but there's clearly a level of complexity to how people see him and the Republicans over there that people over here simply don't get.
We should be a bit more humble and objective in assessing the situation and to do so dispassionately.
Indeed, it reminds me of 2004, we Brits just did not get how on earth Americans could vote for Dubya over Kerry but forgetting that Dubya was looking to win over American voters to win a US election not win approval from voters in the UK.
In US terms the UK would be a solid blue safe Democratic state in the North East, not a swing state in the MidWest
Actually, I'm not sure it would. Particularly in England.
We'd see American politics then through a domestic prism, not an international one, which would broaden and change our views on both the candidates.
We would vote for Biden somewhere along the lines of the margin New Jersey or New York will vote for Biden in November, Trump might win a few rural or ex industrial parts of England but otherwise we would just slot into blue America.
Though of course if post Brexit the UK became the 51st US state that would tip Presidential elections to the Democrats anyway, the UK would be the biggest state population wise in the US with even more EC votes than California and that would mean both Gore and Kerry would have won in 2000 and 2004 and Hillary would have won in 2016 and Biden would almost certainly win next month too
The centre of US politics would shift and then Republicans and Democrats would fight over England as a swing state - we'd simply reach a new equilibrium.
The Democrats identity politics and pro-union stance wouldn't go down particularly well in England. The Republicans would need to moderate their god, guns and gays brand and then there'd be a fair fight.
Spot on.
In two party systems, the parties themselves change until the shares approximate 50:50.
There's enough evidence that black voters are inclining more to Trump than in 2016 for this to be statistically significant.
This doesn't mean all of them are or even a majority - in fact it's a larger minority - but it is worth closer inspection and not dismissal.
Indeed, it would be ironic if Biden ends up with the highest share of the white vote for a Democratic candidate since Obama in 2008 but Trump narrowly wins re election because he gets the highest share of the black vote for a Republican candidate since Reagan in 1980 got 14% of African American support
I don't think Trump will win but there's clearly a level of complexity to how people see him and the Republicans over there that people over here simply don't get.
We should be a bit more humble and objective in assessing the situation and to do so dispassionately.
Indeed, it reminds me of 2004, we Brits just did not get how on earth Americans could vote for Dubya over Kerry but forgetting that Dubya was looking to win over American voters to win a US election not win approval from voters in the UK.
In US terms the UK would be a solid blue safe Democratic state in the North East, not a swing state in the MidWest
Actually, I'm not sure it would. Particularly in England.
We'd see American politics then through a domestic prism, not an international one, which would broaden and change our views on both the candidates.
We would vote for Biden somewhere along the lines of the margin New Jersey or New York will vote for Biden in November, Trump might win a few rural or ex industrial parts of England but otherwise we would just slot into blue America.
Though of course if post Brexit the UK became the 51st US state that would tip Presidential elections to the Democrats anyway, the UK would be the biggest state population wise in the US with even more EC votes than California and that would mean both Gore and Kerry would have won in 2000 and 2004 and Hillary would have won in 2016 and Biden would almost certainly win next month too
The centre of US politics would shift and then Republicans and Democrats would fight over England as a swing state - we'd simply reach a new equilibrium.
The Democrats identity politics and pro-union stance wouldn't go down particularly well in England. The Republicans would need to moderate their god, guns and gays brand and then there'd be a fair fight.
The Republican candidates would also have to look a bit more like Chris Christie and Nikki Haley and Mitt Romney and dare I say Cameron and Boris than Trump and Cruz, the Democrats though would shift further left even as the GOP had to shift to the centre if the UK became the largest state voting in the Democratic primaries. Indeed the likes of Bloomberg would probably shift back to the GOP in that scenario
Boris Johnson hopes families can have Christmas together
It is Boris Johnson's "ambition" for people to celebrate Christmas with their families, his spokesman has said. The prime minister is "hopeful" that "some aspects of our lives" could be "back to normal" by then, he added.
There's enough evidence that black voters are inclining more to Trump than in 2016 for this to be statistically significant.
This doesn't mean all of them are or even a majority - in fact it's a larger minority - but it is worth closer inspection and not dismissal.
Indeed, it would be ironic if Biden ends up with the highest share of the white vote for a Democratic candidate since Obama in 2008 but Trump narrowly wins re election because he gets the highest share of the black vote for a Republican candidate since Reagan in 1980 got 14% of African American support
I don't think Trump will win but there's clearly a level of complexity to how people see him and the Republicans over there that people over here simply don't get.
We should be a bit more humble and objective in assessing the situation and to do so dispassionately.
Indeed, it reminds me of 2004, we Brits just did not get how on earth Americans could vote for Dubya over Kerry but forgetting that Dubya was looking to win over American voters to win a US election not win approval from voters in the UK.
In US terms the UK would be a solid blue safe Democratic state in the North East, not a swing state in the MidWest
Actually, I'm not sure it would. Particularly in England.
We'd see American politics then through a domestic prism, not an international one, which would broaden and change our views on both the candidates.
We would vote for Biden somewhere along the lines of the margin New Jersey or New York will vote for Biden in November, Trump might win a few rural or ex industrial parts of England but otherwise we would just slot into blue America.
Though of course if post Brexit the UK became the 51st US state that would tip Presidential elections to the Democrats anyway, the UK would be the biggest state population wise in the US with even more EC votes than California and that would mean both Gore and Kerry would have won in 2000 and 2004 and Hillary would have won in 2016 and Biden would almost certainly win next month too
The centre of US politics would shift and then Republicans and Democrats would fight over England as a swing state - we'd simply reach a new equilibrium.
The Democrats identity politics and pro-union stance wouldn't go down particularly well in England. The Republicans would need to moderate their god, guns and gays brand and then there'd be a fair fight.
"The Democrats ... pro-union stance" They'd want England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be one state within the US?
Meanwhile the Black vote seems to be moving more to Trump relative to 2016 which could be pivotal in Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina which have above average percentages of African American voters
Come on. If you obtained variance like that, you'd junk your methodology. 24% to 46% in 3 days in the absence of a war or 9/11 type event? Malarkey.
I suspect that both Rasmussen and Trafalgar are basically trousering money from GOP backers to keep producing "polls" that make it look like they are still in the race.
Rasmussen was the only pollster projecting a GOP lead in the mid-terms. They lost by 8.4%.
Rasmussen are the only pollster telling us Trump has a positive approval rating whilst everyone else has a disapproval rating of around 7 to 20%.
There are very good reasons these too are graded as C/ C- pollsters.
Rasmussen final 2016 national poll Clinton +2%
Result Clinton +2%
Can you tell me whether that was as a result of a bit of late 'herding', Hyufd, or were they on the right track all along?
I do have a soft spot for Ras. You know where they are coming from and are thoroughly consistent. If you knock five points off their Trump figure you are generally in the right ballpark, and there's no doubt at all that they are proper pollsters.
Boris Johnson hopes families can have Christmas together
It is Boris Johnson's "ambition" for people to celebrate Christmas with their families, his spokesman has said. The prime minister is "hopeful" that "some aspects of our lives" could be "back to normal" by then, he added.
Yes - fascinating data in that Politico piece on the early voting. And on balance encouraging.
Also rather like the election dynamic it invokes. Like a race with pacing and tactics all important.
The Dems, virus averse, methodical, Roundheads not Cavaliers, slowly and steadily, professionally, racking up a big lead.
Then on 3rd Nov - the back straight - here they come, that Trump Base - "mail is for pussies!" - all sound and fury and not a mask in sight as they hit the polling stations en masse, barreling along down there, on foot or by golf cart, many astride Harley Davidsons, and they VOTE VOTE VOTE and try and catch that Biden total and beat it just before the flag.
Images I'm trying like crazy to suppress are (i) Red Rum and Crisp, Aintree 73 and (ii) Dave "the throttle" Wottle, Munich 72.
God I've got sweaty palms just typing this, given what is at stake here.
Meanwhile the Black vote seems to be moving more to Trump relative to 2016 which could be pivotal in Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina which have above average percentages of African American voters
Come on. If you obtained variance like that, you'd junk your methodology. 24% to 46% in 3 days in the absence of a war or 9/11 type event? Malarkey.
I suspect that both Rasmussen and Trafalgar are basically trousering money from GOP backers to keep producing "polls" that make it look like they are still in the race.
Rasmussen was the only pollster projecting a GOP lead in the mid-terms. They lost by 8.4%.
Rasmussen are the only pollster telling us Trump has a positive approval rating whilst everyone else has a disapproval rating of around 7 to 20%.
There are very good reasons these too are graded as C/ C- pollsters.
Rasmussen final 2016 national poll Clinton +2%
Result Clinton +2%
Can you tell me whether that was as a result of a bit of late 'herding', Hyufd, or were they on the right track all along?
I do have a soft spot for Ras. You know where they are coming from and are thoroughly consistent. If you knock five points off their Trump figure you are generally in the right ballpark, and there's no doubt at all that they are proper pollsters.
Among the 45% who say they have already voted, however, Biden has a 17-point lead – 56% to 39%.
Ninety-three percent (93%) say they are definitely going to vote, and Trump has a five-point advantage – 50% to 45% - among these voters.
If people could not find essential products in supermarkets there were ways around the problem, he said, adding that friends and neighbours were "often very willing to help".
"There are online ways that people can purchase goods," Mr Drakeford said. "It is not a problem without a solution."
If Boris had said this, he would be absolutely blasted, as out of touch with the poor and the old, who don't have internet access.
It does completely defeat both alleged purposes of the legislation, namely (i) to protect small shopkeepers and (ii) to minimise human activity so as to cut the transmission of the disease.
I now wonder whether the short lockdowns could be completely counter-productive. Before they start, we get this
Yesterday one of the government scientists said there could be as many as 90k new cases per day at the moment. The ONS data runs to the 9th and estimates 32k new infections per day.
I can't fit those two data points together. What kind of data modelling are they using for this? I've started to put a logarithmic regression model together today and it can't get near that doubling rate with the daily data inputs or with the ONS data inputs.
I really have to start questioning the competence of the government scientists at this stage.
There was the slide from two weeks ago, where they showed I think 3-4 different "models" of true infections per day. I can't remember the exact figures, but the ONS was down at something like 20k, and there was one model that had up on the slide at upto 70k.
Again, like the how many lives will a circuit breaker save, from low 1000s to over 100k, I do start to really wonder about some of these models.
The latest ons data (based on actual survey data) goes to the 16th
Is "Nippy" an affectionate name for Sturgeon or a putdown?
'Nippy Sweetie' is an old Scots term for an outwardly pleasant woman with a sharp tongue.
It is certainly far from affectionate , it is an insult.
More mixed, I think, in its general usage. Peppery, sharp, you know the kind of traditional sweet like a Hawick ball or Jeddart snail. I'd say someone to treat with respect: Princess Anne has the same quality, and I've seen the expression used of her. It's perfectly possible to have a nippy sweetie female relative and to be wholly comfortable with her while being careful not to get on her bad side (usually for good reasons, ie I am being an idiot - and this will be pointed out to me).
But the problem is that in its wider political usage it has been debased by people who don't know Scots, like 'haver' has been, and certainlyt it is intended as an insult by tje usual suspects on PB. Which, now you mention it, makes me realise it is a highly misogynistic term. Something for the PB Moderators to consider banning.
There's enough evidence that black voters are inclining more to Trump than in 2016 for this to be statistically significant.
This doesn't mean all of them are or even a majority - in fact it's a larger minority - but it is worth closer inspection and not dismissal.
Indeed, it would be ironic if Biden ends up with the highest share of the white vote for a Democratic candidate since Obama in 2008 but Trump narrowly wins re election because he gets the highest share of the black vote for a Republican candidate since Reagan in 1980 got 14% of African American support
I don't think Trump will win but there's clearly a level of complexity to how people see him and the Republicans over there that people over here simply don't get.
We should be a bit more humble and objective in assessing the situation and to do so dispassionately.
Indeed, it reminds me of 2004, we Brits just did not get how on earth Americans could vote for Dubya over Kerry but forgetting that Dubya was looking to win over American voters to win a US election not win approval from voters in the UK.
In US terms the UK would be a solid blue safe Democratic state in the North East, not a swing state in the MidWest
Actually, I'm not sure it would. Particularly in England.
We'd see American politics then through a domestic prism, not an international one, which would broaden and change our views on both the candidates.
We would vote for Biden somewhere along the lines of the margin New Jersey or New York will vote for Biden in November, Trump might win a few rural or ex industrial parts of England but otherwise we would just slot into blue America.
Though of course if post Brexit the UK became the 51st US state that would tip Presidential elections to the Democrats anyway, the UK would be the biggest state population wise in the US with even more EC votes than California and that would mean both Gore and Kerry would have won in 2000 and 2004 and Hillary would have won in 2016 and Biden would almost certainly win next month too
The centre of US politics would shift and then Republicans and Democrats would fight over England as a swing state - we'd simply reach a new equilibrium.
The Democrats identity politics and pro-union stance wouldn't go down particularly well in England. The Republicans would need to moderate their god, guns and gays brand and then there'd be a fair fight.
"The Democrats ... pro-union stance" They'd want England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be one state within the US?
Is "Nippy" an affectionate name for Sturgeon or a putdown?
'Nippy Sweetie' is an old Scots term for an outwardly pleasant woman with a sharp tongue.
It is certainly far from affectionate , it is an insult.
More mixed, I think, in its general usage. Peppery, sharp, you know the kind of traditional sweet like a Hawick ball or Jeddart snail. I'd say someone to treat with respect: Princess Anne has the same quality, and I've seen the expression used of her. It's perfectly possible to have a nippy sweetie female relative and to be wholly comfortable with her while being careful not to get on her bad side (usually for good reasons, ie I am being an idiot - and this will be pointed out to me).
But the problem is that in its wider political usage it has been debased by people who don't know Scots, like 'haver' has been, and certainlyt it is intended as an insult by tje usual suspects on PB. Which, now you mention it, makes me realise it is a highly misogynistic term. Something for the PB Moderators to consider banning.
What always fascinates me about betting, maybe it's just me that sees it this way, is how something with the same chance of happening, happening feels so different, ie Trump as a 2/1 shot winning the election would seem a shock, but if the favourite wins today's 400 at Newbury (Jumaira Bay, currently a 5/2 shot on Betfair) it will be nothing to talk about, despite it being less likely to happen, according to the market, than The Donald retaining the Presidency
I think some of this is to do with binary vs multiple. For example -
Race 1 has 10 runners all at 9/1. Race 2 has 2 runners, fav at 1/9, nag at 9/1.
So, one of the 9/1 shots is bound to come in in Race 1. Therefore this will not feel like much of a surprise to an independent dispassionate observer who has no bet on. But if the 9/1 nag beats the 1/9 "racing certainty" in Race 2, that WILL feel like a real shock.
So here, with the US election, it's like Race 2, a binary 2 horse race, and of course ... I'm going to enjoy this pay off sentence ... Trump is the Nag.
Yeah that is partly it, but it still feels different to be on the 7/1f for the Grand National than it does West Ham tmrw vs City, to me anyway despite knowing this for 20 odd years
So binary factor and also favourite vs outsider
Actually that West Ham bet looks alright!
Think I know what you'll say (which is the same as me) but let me check -
Taking your 2 examples, do you instinctively feel your 7/1 fav National horse has a better or worse chance of winning than your 7/1 West Ham nag?
As opposed to Scottish Nationalists whose real raison d'etre is their hatred of people who identify as English, whether young or old, rich or poor. While I don't like the vote against the extension of free school meals, observing any Nationalist "arsehole" who supports the braindead, hate filled irrational quasi-religion of Scottish Nationalism, (let's not forget its occasional past flirtations with Nazism and Fascism), calling people who follow another party such names has to be seen as pretty rich. Nats are a very poor position to pontificate on morals.
I am forthright You are unparliamentary He/She is inciting violence
Especially as it was the local Tories, not the SNP,. who got banged up (by Churchill, W.S.) for being Nazis.
More mixed, I think, in its general usage. Peppery, sharp, you know the kind of traditional sweet like a Hawick ball or Jeddart snail. I'd say someone to treat with respect: Princess Anne has the same quality, and I've seen the expression used of her.
What always fascinates me about betting, maybe it's just me that sees it this way, is how something with the same chance of happening, happening feels so different, ie Trump as a 2/1 shot winning the election would seem a shock, but if the favourite wins today's 400 at Newbury (Jumaira Bay, currently a 5/2 shot on Betfair) it will be nothing to talk about, despite it being less likely to happen, according to the market, than The Donald retaining the Presidency
I think some of this is to do with binary vs multiple. For example -
Race 1 has 10 runners all at 9/1. Race 2 has 2 runners, fav at 1/9, nag at 9/1.
So, one of the 9/1 shots is bound to come in in Race 1. Therefore this will not feel like much of a surprise to an independent dispassionate observer who has no bet on. But if the 9/1 nag beats the 1/9 "racing certainty" in Race 2, that WILL feel like a real shock.
So here, with the US election, it's like Race 2, a binary 2 horse race, and of course ... I'm going to enjoy this pay off sentence ... Trump is the Nag.
Yeah that is partly it, but it still feels different to be on the 7/1f for the Grand National than it does West Ham tmrw vs City, to me anyway despite knowing this for 20 odd years
So binary factor and also favourite vs outsider
Actually that West Ham bet looks alright!
Think I know what you'll say (which is the same as me) but let me check -
Taking your 2 examples, do you instinctively feel your 7/1 fav National horse has a better or worse chance of winning than your 7/1 West Ham nag?
Can we ban HYUFD from posting until a week on Wednesday please!!!
No no. Let him post:
a) It's good to have a counter-view, b) When he's proved laughably wrong we can all enjoy him eating humble-pie and... c) If he turns out to be right, well f*ck-it, we're in the presence of a maverick genius!.
If people could not find essential products in supermarkets there were ways around the problem, he said, adding that friends and neighbours were "often very willing to help".
"There are online ways that people can purchase goods," Mr Drakeford said. "It is not a problem without a solution."
If Boris had said this, he would be absolutely blasted, as out of touch with the poor and the old, who don't have internet access.
It does completely defeat both alleged purposes of the legislation, namely (i) to protect small shop[keepers and (ii) to minimise human activity so as to cut the transmission of the disease.
I now wonder whether the short lockdowns could be completely counter-productive. Before they start, we get this
So, Welshowl's neighbours hosted a massive Thursday Corona Party in Cardiff, before the 2.5 week lockdown begins.
With a 14 day incubation period for COVID, then as Drakeford's lockdown comes to an end, the pan is nicely boiling again.
Great isn’t it.
I am actively avoiding anybody under the age of 30 round here at present because their rates are through the roof.
There’s now a super local breakdown of Wales available. To give a flavour one student bit of Cardiff has 51 cases And the neighbouring streets 600 yards away in another ward has 9 cases. The worst part of town ( again with lots of halls of residence) is over 2600 ( two thousand six hundred) per 100000.
Now it’s not really the students’ fault. They’re young, know they’re 99.99% not going to die and are doubtless getting pissed and shagging each other’s brains out with gusto ( yes that is envy you can read between the lines), but they should never have been brought back en masse into student accommodation, which is by its very nature communal and cramped, with added alcohol and hormones.
And now Drakeford’s adding to his wonderful management by all but telling people to fill Jeff Bezos’ pockets.
In fairness to Drakeford all govts right now are screwing up because there are no good choices, just varieties of wrong, and wronger. But there are some easy things not to blunder into at the same time.
We should probably add MI, NV and MN, to spice it up a bit.
BUT... (and I know this is not the Politicalbetting way) I'd simply watch the national lead. 2.5% is the point at which Biden become (marginally) more likely than Trump to win.
And what President Trump needs to see is *movement* (like he did with the IBD/TIPP poll two or three days ago). He needs to see those leads decreasing across the board.
More mixed, I think, in its general usage. Peppery, sharp, you know the kind of traditional sweet like a Hawick ball or Jeddart snail. I'd say someone to treat with respect: Princess Anne has the same quality, and I've seen the expression used of her.
More mixed, I think, in its general usage. Peppery, sharp, you know the kind of traditional sweet like a Hawick ball or Jeddart snail. I'd say someone to treat with respect: Princess Anne has the same quality, and I've seen the expression used of her.
It traditionally refers to a dram
New one to me. I think that is secondary - given the timing of the Billy Connolly drink:
We should probably add MI, NV and MN, to spice it up a bit.
BUT... (and I know this is not the Politicalbetting way) I'd simply watch the national lead. 2.5% is the point at which Biden become (marginally) more likely than Trump to win.
And what President Trump needs to see is *movement* (like he did with the IBD/TIPP poll two or three days ago). He needs to see those leads decreasing across the board.
There's enough evidence that black voters are inclining more to Trump than in 2016 for this to be statistically significant.
This doesn't mean all of them are or even a majority - in fact it's a larger minority - but it is worth closer inspection and not dismissal.
Indeed, it would be ironic if Biden ends up with the highest share of the white vote for a Democratic candidate since Obama in 2008 but Trump narrowly wins re election because he gets the highest share of the black vote for a Republican candidate since Reagan in 1980 got 14% of African American support
I don't think Trump will win but there's clearly a level of complexity to how people see him and the Republicans over there that people over here simply don't get.
We should be a bit more humble and objective in assessing the situation and to do so dispassionately.
Indeed, it reminds me of 2004, we Brits just did not get how on earth Americans could vote for Dubya over Kerry but forgetting that Dubya was looking to win over American voters to win a US election not win approval from voters in the UK.
In US terms the UK would be a solid blue safe Democratic state in the North East, not a swing state in the MidWest
Actually, I'm not sure it would. Particularly in England.
We'd see American politics then through a domestic prism, not an international one, which would broaden and change our views on both the candidates.
We would vote for Biden somewhere along the lines of the margin New Jersey or New York will vote for Biden in November, Trump might win a few rural or ex industrial parts of England but otherwise we would just slot into blue America.
Though of course if post Brexit the UK became the 51st US state that would tip Presidential elections to the Democrats anyway, the UK would be the biggest state population wise in the US with even more EC votes than California and that would mean both Gore and Kerry would have won in 2000 and 2004 and Hillary would have won in 2016 and Biden would almost certainly win next month too
The centre of US politics would shift and then Republicans and Democrats would fight over England as a swing state - we'd simply reach a new equilibrium.
The Democrats identity politics and pro-union stance wouldn't go down particularly well in England. The Republicans would need to moderate their god, guns and gays brand and then there'd be a fair fight.
Spot on.
In two party systems, the parties themselves change until the shares approximate 50:50.
Unless there were structural reasons why the two parties could not adjust to create a new equilibrium. Japanese politics didn't do so.
There are such large structural differences between British and American politics that I think a process of adjustment would be really difficult.
Also, this has a bearing on the equilibrium in the present US system. Would you expect the equilibrium to be at 50:50 vote share, 50:50 chance of winning the Presidency, House or Senate? There's quite a difference between all of those.
We should probably add MI, NV and MN, to spice it up a bit.
BUT... (and I know this is not the Politicalbetting way) I'd simply watch the national lead. 2.5% is the point at which Biden become (marginally) more likely than Trump to win.
And what President Trump needs to see is *movement* (like he did with the IBD/TIPP poll two or three days ago). He needs to see those leads decreasing across the board.
I mean, there is movement. There is a clear narrowing on the 538 national polling average.
6 days ago the lead was 10.7, now it is 9.8 and it moved consistently down through those 6 days.
I would like the market to massively over react and make Biden evens again please.
What always fascinates me about betting, maybe it's just me that sees it this way, is how something with the same chance of happening, happening feels so different, ie Trump as a 2/1 shot winning the election would seem a shock, but if the favourite wins today's 400 at Newbury (Jumaira Bay, currently a 5/2 shot on Betfair) it will be nothing to talk about, despite it being less likely to happen, according to the market, than The Donald retaining the Presidency
I think some of this is to do with binary vs multiple. For example -
Race 1 has 10 runners all at 9/1. Race 2 has 2 runners, fav at 1/9, nag at 9/1.
So, one of the 9/1 shots is bound to come in in Race 1. Therefore this will not feel like much of a surprise to an independent dispassionate observer who has no bet on. But if the 9/1 nag beats the 1/9 "racing certainty" in Race 2, that WILL feel like a real shock.
So here, with the US election, it's like Race 2, a binary 2 horse race, and of course ... I'm going to enjoy this pay off sentence ... Trump is the Nag.
Yeah that is partly it, but it still feels different to be on the 7/1f for the Grand National than it does West Ham tmrw vs City, to me anyway despite knowing this for 20 odd years
So binary factor and also favourite vs outsider
Actually that West Ham bet looks alright!
Think I know what you'll say (which is the same as me) but let me check -
Taking your 2 examples, do you instinctively feel your 7/1 fav National horse has a better or worse chance of winning than your 7/1 West Ham nag?
Oh 100% better
Right. Yes, ditto. (We'll assume no bias due to WH being your team and so you'd feel the same if it were say Palace.)
Interesting that this directly conflicts with 2 old gambling sayings -
More mixed, I think, in its general usage. Peppery, sharp, you know the kind of traditional sweet like a Hawick ball or Jeddart snail. I'd say someone to treat with respect: Princess Anne has the same quality, and I've seen the expression used of her.
It traditionally refers to a dram
You go to the bar and ask for a nippy?
Checked. DSL only has it as far back as 1985 in the dram sense. Not sure that is 'traditional' but maybe I am showing my age!
Gsw. 1985 Michael Munro The Patter 49: nippy sweetie A jocular term for a drink of spirits: 'How about a nippy sweetie to finish off?' ... The derivation is from the sense of nippy meaning sharp-tasting, burning to the taste, etc.
We should probably add MI, NV and MN, to spice it up a bit.
BUT... (and I know this is not the Politicalbetting way) I'd simply watch the national lead. 2.5% is the point at which Biden become (marginally) more likely than Trump to win.
And what President Trump needs to see is *movement* (like he did with the IBD/TIPP poll two or three days ago). He needs to see those leads decreasing across the board.
Rasmussen has Trump plus three in Florida today.
Dunno you would call that 'movement'
Rasmussen had the GOP in the lead in its final midterm poll when the party went down by 8.3%
Can we ban HYUFD from posting until a week on Wednesday please!!!
No no. Let him post:
a) It's good to have a counter-view, b) When he's proved laughably wrong we can all enjoy him eating humble-pie and... c) If he turns out to be right, well f*ck-it, we're in the presence of a maverick genius!.
Is he actually forecasting a Trump win though? Last time I asked he was forecasting a Biden win although backing Trump 270-299 for the value. Which is fair enough - I’m doing that too.
We should probably add MI, NV and MN, to spice it up a bit.
BUT... (and I know this is not the Politicalbetting way) I'd simply watch the national lead. 2.5% is the point at which Biden become (marginally) more likely than Trump to win.
And what President Trump needs to see is *movement* (like he did with the IBD/TIPP poll two or three days ago). He needs to see those leads decreasing across the board.
Rasmussen has Trump plus three in Florida today.
Dunno you would call that 'movement'
Rasmussen had the GOP in the lead in its final midterm poll when the party went down by 8.3%
Rasmussen had Clinton +2% in their final 2016 poll though
On the Welsh supermarket thing - don't agree with the non-essential thing but presumably like Amazon they have online sales as well for these goods. Maybe they could open up some in-store terminals so people could do the 2 jobs together! bog roll off the shelf and the toilet seat on-line
We should probably add MI, NV and MN, to spice it up a bit.
BUT... (and I know this is not the Politicalbetting way) I'd simply watch the national lead. 2.5% is the point at which Biden become (marginally) more likely than Trump to win.
And what President Trump needs to see is *movement* (like he did with the IBD/TIPP poll two or three days ago). He needs to see those leads decreasing across the board.
I mean, there is movement. There is a clear narrowing on the 538 national polling average.
6 days ago the lead was 10.7, now it is 9.8 and it moved consistently down through those 6 days.
I would like the market to massively over react and make Biden evens again please.
St Pete and Rasmussen both have 17 - 18% leads for Biden of the vote already in. St Pete thinks Biden wins by 2, Rasmussen has a Trump win.
That's a huge difference when considering the vote already in. Massive.
We should probably add MI, NV and MN, to spice it up a bit.
BUT... (and I know this is not the Politicalbetting way) I'd simply watch the national lead. 2.5% is the point at which Biden become (marginally) more likely than Trump to win.
And what President Trump needs to see is *movement* (like he did with the IBD/TIPP poll two or three days ago). He needs to see those leads decreasing across the board.
I love all the data and chat about the State numbers but the National polling is how I'm doing this too. Unless that centre-of-gravity 9 pt lead narrows to below 6 by 3rd Nov I don't give Trump more than a lightening in a bottle chance.
We should probably add MI, NV and MN, to spice it up a bit.
BUT... (and I know this is not the Politicalbetting way) I'd simply watch the national lead. 2.5% is the point at which Biden become (marginally) more likely than Trump to win.
And what President Trump needs to see is *movement* (like he did with the IBD/TIPP poll two or three days ago). He needs to see those leads decreasing across the board.
I mean, there is movement. There is a clear narrowing on the 538 national polling average.
6 days ago the lead was 10.7, now it is 9.8 and it moved consistently down through those 6 days.
I would like the market to massively over react and make Biden evens again please.
At that tremendously rapid rate of decline (0.15% per day), Trump will reach the 2.5% deficit he needs for an equal shot at the electoral college around December 10th, some 48 days from now...
There's enough evidence that black voters are inclining more to Trump than in 2016 for this to be statistically significant.
This doesn't mean all of them are or even a majority - in fact it's a larger minority - but it is worth closer inspection and not dismissal.
Indeed, it would be ironic if Biden ends up with the highest share of the white vote for a Democratic candidate since Obama in 2008 but Trump narrowly wins re election because he gets the highest share of the black vote for a Republican candidate since Reagan in 1980 got 14% of African American support
I don't think Trump will win but there's clearly a level of complexity to how people see him and the Republicans over there that people over here simply don't get.
We should be a bit more humble and objective in assessing the situation and to do so dispassionately.
Indeed, it reminds me of 2004, we Brits just did not get how on earth Americans could vote for Dubya over Kerry but forgetting that Dubya was looking to win over American voters to win a US election not win approval from voters in the UK.
In US terms the UK would be a solid blue safe Democratic state in the North East, not a swing state in the MidWest
Actually, I'm not sure it would. Particularly in England.
We'd see American politics then through a domestic prism, not an international one, which would broaden and change our views on both the candidates.
We would vote for Biden somewhere along the lines of the margin New Jersey or New York will vote for Biden in November, Trump might win a few rural or ex industrial parts of England but otherwise we would just slot into blue America.
Though of course if post Brexit the UK became the 51st US state that would tip Presidential elections to the Democrats anyway, the UK would be the biggest state population wise in the US with even more EC votes than California and that would mean both Gore and Kerry would have won in 2000 and 2004 and Hillary would have won in 2016 and Biden would almost certainly win next month too
The centre of US politics would shift and then Republicans and Democrats would fight over England as a swing state - we'd simply reach a new equilibrium.
The Democrats identity politics and pro-union stance wouldn't go down particularly well in England. The Republicans would need to moderate their god, guns and gays brand and then there'd be a fair fight.
"The Democrats ... pro-union stance" They'd want England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be one state within the US?
On the Welsh supermarket thing - don't agree with the non-essential thing but presumably like Amazon they have online sales as well for these goods. Maybe they could open up some in-store terminals so people could do the 2 jobs together! bog roll off the shelf and the toilet seat on-line
No, the rule applies to online supermarket orders in Wales as well -- I just tried to order some party goods for online delivery. Not permitted.
I think the Welsh Tories (who suggested this) have managed to stitch Drakeford up nicely.
We should probably add MI, NV and MN, to spice it up a bit.
BUT... (and I know this is not the Politicalbetting way) I'd simply watch the national lead. 2.5% is the point at which Biden become (marginally) more likely than Trump to win.
And what President Trump needs to see is *movement* (like he did with the IBD/TIPP poll two or three days ago). He needs to see those leads decreasing across the board.
I love all the data and chat about the State numbers but the National polling is how I'm doing this too. Unless that centre-of-gravity 9 pt lead narrows to below 6 by 3rd Nov I don't give Trump more than a lightening in a bottle chance.
The largest national polling miss since 1948 was 3.2% in 2012 (when the Democrats were understated). It is - of course - perfectly possible that it is the Democrats who are understated this time around, as polling errors usually oscillate.
But let's assume that there's a 50% chance of a polling error favouring the Republicans, and a 50% chance it's 2% or more. President Trump needs to be 2.5% behind or less to have a 50% chance. Multiplying those up, we get a one-in-eight chance for President Trump if he's 4.5% behind on the day. Given we're currently at one in three for the President, the betting markets are basically saying that President Trump is going to be no more than 2.5% behind in the polls on election day.
Which is perfectly possible, but it does need him to see movement.
What always fascinates me about betting, maybe it's just me that sees it this way, is how something with the same chance of happening, happening feels so different, ie Trump as a 2/1 shot winning the election would seem a shock, but if the favourite wins today's 400 at Newbury (Jumaira Bay, currently a 5/2 shot on Betfair) it will be nothing to talk about, despite it being less likely to happen, according to the market, than The Donald retaining the Presidency
I think some of this is to do with binary vs multiple. For example -
Race 1 has 10 runners all at 9/1. Race 2 has 2 runners, fav at 1/9, nag at 9/1.
So, one of the 9/1 shots is bound to come in in Race 1. Therefore this will not feel like much of a surprise to an independent dispassionate observer who has no bet on. But if the 9/1 nag beats the 1/9 "racing certainty" in Race 2, that WILL feel like a real shock.
So here, with the US election, it's like Race 2, a binary 2 horse race, and of course ... I'm going to enjoy this pay off sentence ... Trump is the Nag.
Yeah that is partly it, but it still feels different to be on the 7/1f for the Grand National than it does West Ham tmrw vs City, to me anyway despite knowing this for 20 odd years
So binary factor and also favourite vs outsider
Actually that West Ham bet looks alright!
Think I know what you'll say (which is the same as me) but let me check -
Taking your 2 examples, do you instinctively feel your 7/1 fav National horse has a better or worse chance of winning than your 7/1 West Ham nag?
Oh 100% better
Right. Yes, ditto. (We'll assume no bias due to WH being your team and so you'd feel the same if it were say Palace.)
Interesting that this directly conflicts with 2 old gambling sayings -
On the Welsh supermarket thing - don't agree with the non-essential thing but presumably like Amazon they have online sales as well for these goods. Maybe they could open up some in-store terminals so people could do the 2 jobs together! bog roll off the shelf and the toilet seat on-line
No, the rule applies to online supermarket orders in Wales as well -- I just tried to order some party goods for online delivery. Not permitted.
I think the Welsh Tories (who suggested this) have managed to stitch Drakeford up nicely.
There's enough evidence that black voters are inclining more to Trump than in 2016 for this to be statistically significant.
This doesn't mean all of them are or even a majority - in fact it's a larger minority - but it is worth closer inspection and not dismissal.
There’s certainly a number of high-profile black republicans standing for congress this year. Wesley Hunt and Kimberly Klacik, to give two examples, have been getting a lot of airtime.
I don't think there's any doubt that Trump might be doing slightly better with African-Americans in 2020 than 2016. The key though is whether the African-American voters that turned out for Obama-Biden, but not for Clinton-Kaine, will turn out for Biden-Harris. If enough of them do, it won't matter that Trump is doing better with the demographic.
Yes. Turnout is more important imo. A strong Black turnout is good for Biden.
On the Welsh supermarket thing - don't agree with the non-essential thing but presumably like Amazon they have online sales as well for these goods. Maybe they could open up some in-store terminals so people could do the 2 jobs together! bog roll off the shelf and the toilet seat on-line
No, the rule applies to online supermarket orders in Wales as well -- I just tried to order some party goods for online delivery. Not permitted.
I think the Welsh Tories (who suggested this) have managed to stitch Drakeford up nicely.
You can't even order non-essentials online? Wow.
What is the stated aim of the Welsh government in doing this?
Comments
Boris Johnson hopes families can have Christmas together
It is Boris Johnson's "ambition" for people to celebrate Christmas with their families, his spokesman has said. The prime minister is "hopeful" that "some aspects of our lives" could be "back to normal" by then, he added.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54662895
I can't fit those two data points together. What kind of data modelling are they using for this? I've started to put a logarithmic regression model together today and it can't get near that doubling rate with the daily data inputs or with the ONS data inputs.
I really have to start questioning the competence of the government scientists at this stage.
You are unparliamentary
He/She is inciting violence
Again, like the how many lives will a circuit breaker save, from low 1000s to over 100k, I do start to really wonder about some of these models.
I'm criticising this data and the interpretation of it.
https://twitter.com/OldNorthStPol/status/1319628327951491073
A few things sprung out
- The Republicans have narrowed the gap again vs the Democrats in % of absentee ballots - 42% vs 29% vs 43%/28% the day before. One feature that makes me think that doesn't reflect the true position is that in Rural County areas (which was a strong Trump area), 42% of the absentee ballots come from Democrats vs 32% for Republicans, which makes me think some of these are old-school Democrats by registration but who actually vote Republican;
- 22% of those who have voted already didn't vote in 2016 (17% post-16 registration). Not much difference in the Democrat / Republican % of vote from non-16 voters (21%/19%);
- Older voters continue to dominate - only 22% of votes so far from 40 or under even though they make up 40% of the electorate;
- The Republicans have picked up the speed in terms of % of those registered who have already voted. If the curve continues at the same rate, they will pass the Democrats by election day;
- On the racial mix, White turnout again looks to have picked up as % of overall voters, Black voters probably trending in line as % of absentee ballots as their share of voters (c. 22%)
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/54656359
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-54662496
Rasmussen was the only pollster projecting a GOP lead in the mid-terms. They lost by 8.4%.
Rasmussen are the only pollster telling us Trump has a positive approval rating whilst everyone else has a disapproval rating of around 7 to 20%.
There are very good reasons these too are graded as C/ C- pollsters.
https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/status/1319641438305570818?s=20
Florida Trump 49% Biden 46%
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/florida_trump_49_biden_46
A lot of other interesting questions raised, of course. We would have to lose the monarchy. Would Canada join too? Would the 2nd amendment lead to more gun violence here? How would it affect population dynamics here (I am guessing rapid depopulation)? Would the American South put up with their country shifting to the left permanently or seek to secede again? Would they learn how to make a decent cuppa?
In a lot of ways there is a logic to the idea of a vast Anglosphere Republic, but it could be a pretty crazy place and evolve in some unexpected ways. I'm not particularly against it, the US is a weird place but I've lived there before and don't mind living there again.
Result Clinton +2%
"There are online ways that people can purchase goods," Mr Drakeford said. "It is not a problem without a solution."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-54662795
If Boris had said this, he would be absolutely blasted, as out of touch with the poor and the old, who don't have internet access.
The Democrats identity politics and pro-union stance wouldn't go down particularly well in England. The Republicans would need to moderate their god, guns and gays brand and then there'd be a fair fight.
In two party systems, the parties themselves change until the shares approximate 50:50.
I do have a soft spot for Ras. You know where they are coming from and are thoroughly consistent. If you knock five points off their Trump figure you are generally in the right ballpark, and there's no doubt at all that they are proper pollsters.
Yes - fascinating data in that Politico piece on the early voting. And on balance encouraging.
Also rather like the election dynamic it invokes. Like a race with pacing and tactics all important.
The Dems, virus averse, methodical, Roundheads not Cavaliers, slowly and steadily, professionally, racking up a big lead.
Then on 3rd Nov - the back straight - here they come, that Trump Base - "mail is for pussies!" - all sound and fury and not a mask in sight as they hit the polling stations en masse, barreling along down there, on foot or by golf cart, many astride Harley Davidsons, and they VOTE VOTE VOTE and try and catch that Biden total and beat it just before the flag.
Images I'm trying like crazy to suppress are (i) Red Rum and Crisp, Aintree 73 and (ii) Dave "the throttle" Wottle, Munich 72.
God I've got sweaty palms just typing this, given what is at stake here.
Ninety-three percent (93%) say they are definitely going to vote, and Trump has a five-point advantage – 50% to 45% - among these voters.
I now wonder whether the short lockdowns could be completely counter-productive. Before they start, we get this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-wales-54656896
So, Welshowl's neighbours hosted a massive Thursday Corona Party in Cardiff, before the 2.5 week lockdown begins.
With a 14 day incubation period for COVID, then as Drakeford's lockdown comes to an end, the pan is nicely boiling again.
https://twitter.com/cathynewman/status/1319649326793195521?s=20
Surely that trumps theoretical models?
But the problem is that in its wider political usage it has been debased by people who don't know Scots, like 'haver' has been, and certainlyt it is intended as an insult by tje usual suspects on PB. Which, now you mention it, makes me realise it is a highly misogynistic term. Something for the PB Moderators to consider banning.
Among the 45% who say they have already voted, however, Biden has a 17-point lead – 56% to 39%. Fieldwork 20/21st October
St Pete Poll :
Already voted 39.3% Donald Trump ; 58.2% Biden - fieldwork 21st/22nd October
Taking your 2 examples, do you instinctively feel your 7/1 fav National horse has a better or worse chance of winning than your 7/1 West Ham nag?
PA +5
FL +3
WI +6
NC +2
AZ +2
https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president
PA was +6 yesterday.
What is this site supposed to be, a betting site or Biden's UK campaign HQ?
a) It's good to have a counter-view,
b) When he's proved laughably wrong we can all enjoy him eating humble-pie and...
c) If he turns out to be right, well f*ck-it, we're in the presence of a maverick genius!.
Have you posted both Florida polls from today or just the one?
I am actively avoiding anybody under the age of 30 round here at present because their rates are through the roof.
There’s now a super local breakdown of Wales available. To give a flavour one student bit of Cardiff has 51 cases And the neighbouring streets 600 yards away in another ward has 9 cases. The worst part of town ( again with lots of halls of residence) is over 2600 ( two thousand six hundred) per 100000.
Now it’s not really the students’ fault. They’re young, know they’re 99.99% not going to die and are doubtless getting pissed and shagging each other’s brains out with gusto ( yes that is envy you can read between the lines), but they should never have been brought back en masse into student accommodation, which is by its very nature communal and cramped, with added alcohol and hormones.
And now Drakeford’s adding to his wonderful management by all but telling people to fill Jeff Bezos’ pockets.
In fairness to Drakeford all govts right now are screwing up because there are no good choices, just varieties of wrong, and wronger. But there are some easy things not to blunder into at the same time.
BUT... (and I know this is not the Politicalbetting way) I'd simply watch the national lead. 2.5% is the point at which Biden become (marginally) more likely than Trump to win.
And what President Trump needs to see is *movement* (like he did with the IBD/TIPP poll two or three days ago). He needs to see those leads decreasing across the board.
http://whiskycritic.com/last-known-bottle-of-nippy-sweetie-on-display-in-glasgow
Dunno you would call that 'movement'
There are such large structural differences between British and American politics that I think a process of adjustment would be really difficult.
Also, this has a bearing on the equilibrium in the present US system. Would you expect the equilibrium to be at 50:50 vote share, 50:50 chance of winning the Presidency, House or Senate? There's quite a difference between all of those.
6 days ago the lead was 10.7, now it is 9.8 and it moved consistently down through those 6 days.
I would like the market to massively over react and make Biden evens again please.
Interesting that this directly conflicts with 2 old gambling sayings -
"The bigger the field the bigger the certainty."
"Always take the big odds on a 2 horse race."
Gsw. 1985 Michael Munro The Patter 49:
nippy sweetie A jocular term for a drink of spirits: 'How about a nippy sweetie to finish off?' ... The derivation is from the sense of nippy meaning sharp-tasting, burning to the taste, etc.
That's a huge difference when considering the vote already in. Massive.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1319652059784843264?s=20
No, the rule applies to online supermarket orders in Wales as well -- I just tried to order some party goods for online delivery. Not permitted.
I think the Welsh Tories (who suggested this) have managed to stitch Drakeford up nicely.
But let's assume that there's a 50% chance of a polling error favouring the Republicans, and a 50% chance it's 2% or more. President Trump needs to be 2.5% behind or less to have a 50% chance. Multiplying those up, we get a one-in-eight chance for President Trump if he's 4.5% behind on the day. Given we're currently at one in three for the President, the betting markets are basically saying that President Trump is going to be no more than 2.5% behind in the polls on election day.
Which is perfectly possible, but it does need him to see movement.
Still a bit of 2.14 available on Biden in BF`s "Electoral College Vote H'cap - 100.5" market" if feeling ultra confident.